I get it now Henry. We allow YOU to exercise YOUR inalienable rights. Nobody else matters.

I think it's worth continuing this conversation with respect to Glenn's remark above (and Sid's enthusiastic endorsement). Despite the snarky comment, there's a real question being discussed, i.e. "at what point and to what extent do some people have the right to interfere with the choices of other people?" All of human history is actually a commentary on the question (think empires, pharoahs, kings, aristocracies, wars, mobs, etc.). That age-old question is reflected in this discussion, writ small: Most people feel they should be able to interfere and project force on others for trivial reasons, i.e. when they feel "negatively impacted." My own position is to the contrary, and I think the American Experiment (should say "the Western Civilization Experiment") has been an admirable if unusual attempt to break out of the historically common human mindset.

The core question is this: "At what point should some people have the right to interfere with the lives and actions of others?" I tend to come down toward the side of individual autonomy (thus my response of "So what?" to Carol being offended by a junky trailer in a neighbor's driveway). It is a real question that should be posed whenever some people are proposing to use force to make other people comply with their wishes. An increasingly number of people are coming down more on the side of being able to control the acts and choices of others. (Thus my potential "minority of one" status.)

The funny thing is, I would expect that the free-living, RV-traveling lifestyle---which is itself frowned upon or looked upon with fear and loathing by some---would attract the kind of people who would be loathe to interfere in the lives of others. Perhaps not at this particular website, but think of the hippy bus-and-trailer caravan across the country in 1971 to found "The Farm". Or Ken Kesey's wildly painted school bus named "Further" that he drove around the country (not to mention all the other crazy-looking and disheveled trailers, vans, and school buses we've seen around the country). Would most people object to one of them being parked in a neighbor's driveway or back yard? Probably. Me? No.

(As a side observation, Glenn, did you know that Bertolt Brecht, whom you quote, was a committed Marxist his entire life, and that he was awarded the "Stalin Peace Prize" by the Soviet Union in 1954?)

A friend of mine many years back bought a house from a friend of his who lived there for 20 years down in the pine barrens of south jersey. Several acres, heavily tree covered with a clearing for the house and garage with a smaller lawn front and back that isn't very viewable from the street through the tree's. When the old neighbor passed away, his son inherited the property.

The son's wife insisted on a large house be built, took down a lot of the tree's and had sod put in and made the rural lot into a "suburban" home. Then she started calling the building inspector complaining my friend didn't cut his grass often enough. Complained about his rv in his backyard (that was behind a tall privacy fence and from ground level could not be seen from their property...but her second floor bedroom deck, she could see it) The building inspector forced him during a hot summer (he is physically disabled) to cut the grass every week, clean up the place etc. About a year later the neighbor's divorced and the wife moved away...complaints stopped, building inspector stopped coming out.

Now if he was living like that in a typical suburban neighborhood I can see people complaining. But you move into the woods and decide your neighbor's aren't living the way you want them to live so lets complain.

I try to keep the mindset that it's ok (within limits of course) to let people live the way they want to. Yes proper sanitation disposal is important (and personally the prices on septic systems are pretty over priced) but the minimum square footage that a lot of towns demand (and I have been talking with building inspectors in several town in Pa and NY) most are over 1000 square feet. What if being only 1 or 2 people and want to live in a 20x30 house? We have a neighbor on our block who built what we call "the warehouse" Its a giant 3 level box of a house... I consider it an eyesore...but who am I to tell them how to live?

Building codes are important for safety reason's...proper wiring and plumbing/sanitation are important... but how many square feet should be open for debate based on how many people will be occupying the space.

__________________
deryk

All that is gold does not glitter,Not all those who wander are lost;The old that is strong does not wither,Deep roots are not reached by the frost.... J.R.R. Tolkien

Or exercising the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...including when someone thinks that doing so might "negatively impact property values"?

There is no "Might" about whether or not a messy neighbours yard will impact the neighbours property values - it will! Suggest you have a chat with your local realtor on that topic.

I totally agree it is sad situation that restrictive bylaws need to be put into place in order to protect all property owners from those folks who really do not care or understand that their chooses can and will negatively impact their neighbours. But its clear there are lots of the later group out there.

I try to keep the mindset that it's ok (within limits of course) to let people live the way they want to. Yes proper sanitation disposal is important (and personally the prices on septic systems are pretty over priced) but the minimum square footage that a lot of towns demand (and I have been talking with building inspectors in several town in Pa and NY) most are over 1000 square feet. What if being only 1 or 2 people and want to live in a 20x30 house? We have a neighbor on our block who built what we call "the warehouse" Its a giant 3 level box of a house... I consider it an eyesore...but who am I to tell them how to live?

I agree with deryk above. Many of us may just have to agree to disagree.

There is no "Might" about whether or not a messy neighbours yard will impact the neighbours property values - it will! Suggest you have a chat with your local realtor on that topic.

I totally agree it is sad situation that restrictive bylaws need to be put into place in order to protect all property owners from those folks who really do not care or understand that their chooses can and will negatively impact their neighbours. But its clear there are lots of the later group out there.

I support the recent correction in property values across the country and see it as the best thing to happen to them in more than four decades. The result for me was the purchase a home which approaches dream home status at a 45% reduction in price and a 40% reduction in real estate taxes.

Not one cent of these reductions had anything to do with the size of the houses in neighborhoods or the color of the cars parked on the driveways.
Incompetent lending practices to incompetent borrowers was the cause of both the ridiculous "property value" increases and their subsequent collapse. This cause can't be seen from the street, but the results can!
All the sanctimony of all HOA members combined could have done nothing to affect these outcomes.

I support the recent correction in property values across the country and see it as the best thing to happen to them in more than four decades. The result for me was the purchase a home which approaches dream home status at a 45% reduction in price and a 40% reduction in real estate taxes. Not one cent of these reductions had anything to do with the size of the houses in neighborhoods or the color of the cars parked on the driveways.
Incompetent lending practices to incompetent borrowers was the cause which can't be seen from the street, but the results can!

Good for you Floyd. We also had a price correction in these parts but it went the other way. In my area we have seen a 125% increase in 6 years. Meaning young families are having to eat a lot of Mac and Cheese in order to purchase their first home.

I support the recent correction in property values across the country and see it as the best thing to happen to them in more than four decades. The result for me was the purchase a home which approaches dream home status at a 45% reduction in price and a 40% reduction in real estate taxes.

There are several reasons for the drop in property values. You just 'cherry picked' one of them to support your argument.
And the wide-spread reduction in assessments does not result in a wide-spread reduction in property tax. ( Grade 11 Business )
Property tax depends on the mil rate used ( $tax per $1,000 assessment ). If the municipality ( county ) requires more money they raise the mil rate.

__________________
What happens to the hole when the cheese is gone?
- Bertolt Brecht

Property tax depends on the mil rate used ($tax per $1,000 assessment). If the municipality (county) requires more money they raise the mil rate.

And they always require more money, year-after-year, do they not? I mean, how many times do we see county or municipal budgets go down? That rarely occurs (as in "unicorn"). Thus, living full-time in our trailers to escape from rapacious government and its ever-rising taxes becomes ever more attractive, yes?

And they always require more money, year-after-year, do they not? I mean, how many times do we see county or municipal budgets go down? That rarely occurs (as in "unicorn"). Thus, living full-time in our trailers to escape from rapacious government and its ever-rising taxes becomes ever more attractive, yes?

Yup local government needs to maintain aging infrastructure such as sewer, storm water systems, roads, recreation centres, libraries etc no matter what the property values are. Just as home owner needs to keep maintain their home - new roof, new hot water tank, new furnace needed every so many years.

The cost of doing so does not change just because the value of properties went down.

-
i still don't see why a tiny (<200sqft) house on a trailer should be put in the same class as a double wide trailer.
here in georgia a person cannot move his 15 year old trailer to a different location.
should that same restriction be levied on a tiny house sized diy fiberglass trailer?
and what about the companies in florida and such that are building trailers similar to tiny houses according to rvia standards?
aren't mobile home and modular home standards unsafe for truly movable housing?
when does safety take a back seat to profits?
which is the HUD motivation, really?
-
.

Yup local government needs to maintain aging infrastructure such as sewer, storm water systems, roads, recreation centres, libraries etc no matter what the property values are. Just as home owner needs to keep maintain their home - new roof, new hot water tank, new furnace needed every so many years.

The cost of doing so does not change just because the value of properties went down.

This is correct but it does not mean the inverse is true. The direct cost of maintenance does not go up with age - if managed properly. Through proper life cycle management calculations you can estimate the maintenance and replacement costs fairly accurately for equipment/buildings for each year of their existence - whether the intention they are to last 10 or 100 years.

In fact, if done properly the equipment/property replacement funds should be in the bank at the time the equipment/property needs replacement/rebuild.

This is rarely - if ever done properly by gov't planners. Instead, they use 'aging infrastructure' as an excuse to raise taxes to cover their incompetence.